Ita/142/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Faridabad v. M/S Bmw India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH 26 CM-6314-CI[-2021 in/andITA-142-2015 andXOBJC-186-CITI-2015 (O&MDecided on : December 09, 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant VS) M/s BMW India Pvt.Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.(Department) Mr. Rohan Shan, Advocate Mr. Srisabari Rajan, Advocate andMr. Alankar Narula, Advocatefor the respondent.(Assessee)Mr. Alankar Narula, Advocatefor the respondent.(Assessee) %%%% AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)CMF6314;CI]F202 1)This application has been filed for fixing an actual date of hearing in the main appeal. |For the reasons recorded in the application, the same isallowed and with the consent of both the parties, the main appeal istaken up on Board for hearing today itself. ITAF142F2015 and XOBJCF186FCIIF2015 3)This appeal as well as the Cross-Objections have been filedagainst the order dated 16.38.2013 (Annexure A-11) passed by the IncomTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “Il” New Delhi in ITA No.5354/DEL/2012 dated 16.8.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. 4In the appeal, certain legal issues have been raised and those inturn are pending before the Supreme Court in CA NO. 3954 of 2017. It hasbeen stated that that the appeal in the Supreme Court has now been listed inJanuary, 2022. Apart from that, Cross-Objections have been filed by therespondent-assessee wherein the following questions have been raised :- 1 Whether the ITAT erred in law by upholding theincurring of allegedly excessive expenditure on AMP is anInternational Transaction against the provisions under Section92B ofthe Act. 11 Whether the IITAT erred in law in upholding thapplication of the “Bright Line Test” as a tool for calculatingthe arm's length price of the alleged International Transactionwithout complying with the Transfer Pricing provisionscontained in the Act ? 11 That the Assessee (respondent-cross objector)herein has notfiled any such or similar cross objection till dateeither before this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Supreme CourtofIndia. ~ 5.In this case, both the parties are aggrieved of the same judgmentorder albeit on different grounds. In these circumstances, we deem itappropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2013 and remandthe case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on all aspects inaccordance with law. Parties through counsel are directed to appear beforethe Tribunal on 20.12.2021 or on any other date on which the Tribunal mayrequire its presence. 6.Appeal as well as Cross-Objection stand disposed of. >3Since the main case has been decided, the pending civilmiscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of, (AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE(PANKAJ JAIN)JUDGE December 09, 2021anuradhaWhether speaking/reasoned0YesWhether reportable0NO